I agree with what was said above about manual focusing a wide angle. Sounds easy, but i'm finding it more difficult than expected. I'm sure the Zeiss is awesome, but from what i've seen at places like photozone.de, at any given fstop that both lenses can do, (2.8 and narrower) the canon eguals the zeiss, and you have the option to go up to 2 stops faster with the canon if need be. sure the IQ of the canon at these larger openings would be less than the much slower zeiss, but the option is there. Plus, 82mm filters are more expensive, and not as useful across multiple lenses. that of course might not be true for you personally, maybe you have other glass that uses 82mm filters, or perhaps you don't really use any filters anyway, so no problem.

the only point I'd disagree on is the 82mm filter part. Canon seems to be generally moving in that direction, so while that was once true, it may not be true for much longer.

Hey Norman...that comparison on the Digital Picture would appear to prove that the Canon is sharper than the Zeiss at f/2.8 (although the Zeiss sample is underexposed a little so it is tough to compare...but the Canon looks sharper).That would go against everything I have read LOL!!! Can we chalk that up to variation in copies?Sometimes I just don't know what to believe.I tried to find another good comparison like SLRGear but they have not review or tested the Zeiss.I will check into DxO...but I am not a fan there....Thanks for throwing that into the mix! It should make CJ very happy with his choice!!!!!! I still love my Zeiss, tho.

Update:For what it is worth DxO rates the Canon 24 much higher than the Zeiss 21mm on a 5DIII....Hmmmmmmmm...... (LOL!)

My eye is definately not trained at this sort of thing, but I thought the zeiss looked sharper. In the centre I can't tell the difference at f2.8, but the corners looked sharper on the zeiss? I am slightly less fussed about the corners as long as the center and middle look good.

« Last Edit: December 07, 2012, 11:29:28 AM by CJRodgers »

Logged

Standard

The Zeiss 21mm is a stellar lens. I have the 24L II and love it. If I have the dough (and/or the need to justify its purchase), I would also add the Zeiss mainly for the "Zeiss look" and built quality and use it for landscape. The 24L II, because of its AF, is more versatile for just about everything – from street photography to landscape. For discreet street-style shots, I can set it at chest or hip height, focus without looking through the viewfinder and shoot. The choice of either one boils down to what you're planning to use it for and how it fits into your shooting style. If you'd never shoot manual, it isn't hard at all but requires a different set of discipline.

Logged

PackLight

I have the 24mm f/1.4 L II. It isn't sharp wide open. At 1.8-2 it is at its sharest.

Basicly it comes down to what your shooting.The 24mm has AF, the 21mm does not. How good would you be with a manual focus lens. You can have all the resolution in the world but it does nothing for you out of focus.If you are a static landscape shooter go for the 21mm.

Yeah I'm sure it is a for what you will use it for. Not that it matters now since you already bought I guess.

I recently had the same decision to make going back to full frame. The F1.4 for night stuff desire, like Milky Way, Auroras, etc got the better of me and I went 24L II. I then soon saw the F1.4 difference was a moot point given how useless it was anyway. Any light source had huge flying coma wings. Really all the way through to F2.8. Basically I'd be wanting to stop it down to that in the end anyway. And that stuff extends well in from the corners a long ways. Wound up with the Zeiss in the end. But for sure there would be other uses for that F1.4 to F2.8 bonus range of the Canon, just nothing I'd ever shoot. Now having the Zeiss I'm a lot floored by the resolution and all that micro-contrast I'd heard about. It really is a different deal than I've ever seen.

The other thing on DxO resolution scores linked here. lensrentals.com always has some used 21 Ziess lenses for sale it seems. I've seen some of them with a 20/20 lp/mm resolution value stated by then. Most 22/22. The one I got said 24/24 "obscene resolution". So even with Zeiss it must really depend on the copy. I wonder how many of the "20/20" types could be tweaked by Zeiss to 24/24 or if they are sol for some un-tweakable reason. The hard stop infinity focus deal is a serious bonus too, as I saw on a recent night out shooting and swapping lenses a lot. Was always thankful for that when I'd slam the Zeiss back on.

OK, CJ...since the obsession of these lenses is totally consuming my day!!!! LOL... (I love it!)I thought I would throw this into the mix from Roger at LensRental...(can we take anything seriously from a man who wears headgear like this? He looks like a Spanish Conquistador, no?)... I respect his opinion a lot. This is what he has to say about the Zeiss 21mm f/2.8 ZE:

I love my Zeiss lenses too and there is a learning curve required to shoot manual focus, but has anyone mentioned Canon's 24TSE-II which also incredibly sharp corner/corner with the ability to tilt/shift for perspective control? I've got the TSE and love it. It too requires an 82mm filter.

I'd have to say that in order of sharpness, it would be 1. 24TSE, 2. 24L-II and 3. ZE 21mm. at least per my eyes.

Logged

A few cameras and lenses and a lot of creative energy and imagination."You never learn anything until you mess it up."

Clicking on measurements, resolution, then field map, then going through the apertures, that is rather humorous. Like the corners go that bad stopping down to F5.6. Something ain't right there and surely that figures into the overall resolution score.

Argh, if only id had a few more hours to make my choice...Hopefully using it will make me feel better!

CJ, I think that there is no wrong choice here!!!! You did great!I have the 50mm f/1.4 Sigma and the Canon 85 f/1.2L...had sold my 24-105mm f/4L IS back in the spring anticipating the new 24-70mm f/2.8II. Well I was without a "walk-around" lens for a long time because of all of the delays and I was really balking at the price and mixed reviews...so I started to look perhaps purchasing the new Sigma 35mm f/1.4 and the Canon 24mm f/1.4L... . ..which would have filled that whole range in for me beautifully...(it would be approximately the same cash outlay for those two lenses vs the new 24-70mm)In the end ...I bought the new 24-70mm f/2.8II. I just do not want to carry all of that glass with the primes many times, and change lenses out. I am pretty impressed with the zoom... It works with what I have. I have a 5DIII so low light is becoming less of an issue.I think that the Canon 24mm is an excellent lens. I would still think of owning it and the Sigma...but I think I am going to set my sights on the new Zeiss 25mm ZE f/2.8....That looks KILLER and would really round things out for me further. Just wish I could have it all!!!!!!!! It is great that we have so many choices though...That is never a bad thing...and if the rest of the new Sigma Artist Line lives up to the 35mm...there will many more choices down the line.ENJOY your lens CJ. If I lived next door to you we could swap-out once in a while!!!!!!! LOL!

Clicking on measurements, resolution, then field map, then going through the apertures, that is rather humorous. Like the corners go that bad stopping down to F5.6. Something ain't right there and surely that figures into the overall resolution score.

Yeah...like I said above...I am NOT a fan of DxOMark. Everything they do seems questionable to me, but I thought I would throw that into the mix as there is not a lot of bench testing for the Zeiss out there. Just opinions.

Whilst I was very excited by the zeiss i went with the canon. It was a lens I have wanted for a long time, and I haven't even looked into the zeiss very much because I just always assumed Id never have one. So i went with what i had researched most. Plus i got the guy to know an extra £20 off, chuck in postage. And it has filters, and its weathersealed. So im happy. I think :s lol.

The best thing about both lens' is that they both hold their value so well. So if I practise manual focus on this, if i decide i prefer the colour or the slightly wider feel of the zeiss I can always sell it and buy a zeiss if the opportunity comes up again i guess!

Thanks again. I love that I can always count on this forumn for some input.

For the sake of completeness, the Zeiss lenses are shielded - they have a gasket at the back.

I think the reality is, the differences in sharpness between the 24 TS/E, 24 MkII and Zeiss 21 are minimal at equal apertures. The main differences are in the tilt for the TS/E, the wider aperture for the 24 MkII and the Zeiss look for the 21 (due to the microcontrast). If you want something wider and have a chance at owning Zeiss, the 18mm gets quite good reviews, albeit, it is supposed to be less sharp, but it is a few hundred pounds cheaper too. I also looked at the same lenses and was leaning towards the Zeiss, but then went for the 24 MkII because I wanted to shoot the northern lights. As long as you stop down to f/1.6 or narrower, it is fine for that purpose and in fact is probably about as good as you can get. It may be less sharp at wide apertures, but it does prevent star trails and loss of definition in the norhtern lights as they move.